Polls are evil and stupid and tend in practice on en: to be used to force through stupid ideas in the hope no-one will notice the poll. For further evidence, check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_locations
Apparently started by some new users and sent under the radar. Go help kill some of these stupid ideas.
- d.
"David Gerard" wrote rather tesily (and who can really blame him?):
Polls are evil and stupid and tend in practice on en: to be used to force through stupid ideas in the hope no-one will notice the poll. For further evidence, check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_locations Apparently started by some new users and sent under the radar. Go help kill some of these stupid ideas.
To be fair, there is some mileage in confirming that almost all metadata labels should be placed on the Talk Page, and being able to point to a decision could come in handy later. I'm noting several people whose opinions I have come to respect (Angela and Raul654 most prominently) taking part in the discussion and so far I think I'm agreeing with them mostly.
It is obvious upon reading (unless I've massively misunderstood) that certain parties think that metadata is so important that it should be prominently displayed in the article itself. This includes whether a given article comes under the aegis of any particular WikiProject, which IMNSHO is verging on the insane.
With a bit of luck, this attempt can be made to back-fire completely, and these (in some case extremely ugly) labels can be safely relocated to the appropriate Talk Pages where they can be happy and productive. Maybe they could even be made pretty, although holding of breath is probably contraindicated.
It is obvious upon reading (unless I've massively misunderstood) that certain parties think that metadata is so important that it should be prominently displayed in the article itself. This includes whether a given article comes under the aegis of any particular WikiProject, which IMNSHO is verging on the insane.
I just noticed this poll because David called our attention to it but I happen to lean towards the other side. I see no reason to shield casual readers from exhortations to help with the project.
Admittedly the WikiProject templates are a bit too big and unattractive but I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly prettified version of them in the article namespace where they are much more likely to be seen and do some good - perhaps attracting new editors.
Regards, Haukur
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Admittedly the WikiProject templates are a bit too big and unattractive but I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly prettified version of them in the article namespace where they are much more likely to be seen and do some good - perhaps attracting new editors.
Those messages are ugly and have no relevance to third party users of Wikipedia content. We also do not have a problem with attracting new editors as is so this is a solution in search of a problem. Best to keep things as clean as possible for the vast majority of our users - readers.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Those messages are ugly and have no relevance to third party users of Wikipedia content.
They have relevance to Wikipedians and prospective Wikipedians. I doubt they greatly annoy anyone else. Some of them could certainly do with a little prettifying, though.
We also do not have a problem with attracting new editors as is so this is a solution in search of a problem.
The existence of a problem is not a logical prerequisite for the desire to improve a situation. We can always use more editors.
Regards, Haukur
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
They have relevance to Wikipedians and prospective Wikipedians. I doubt they greatly annoy anyone else. Some of them could certainly do with a little prettifying, though.
Our primary audience is readers. They outnumber editors at least 50 to 1. Keeping things nice and clean for them and targeting messages aimed at editors to places where editors hang out (talk pages and edit screens) is the way to go. The only exception I can see to this would be for really sub-standard articles where the messages help to warn readers.
-- mav
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Our primary audience is readers. They outnumber editors at least 50 to 1.
As I see it the primary goal of the Wikipedia project is to *create* an encyclopedia - not to *be* an encyclopedia. Thus editors are more important than readers.
And if seeing some metatags makes casual readers better aware of the nature of the project then that's just for the better.
Keeping things nice and clean for them and targeting messages aimed at editors to places where editors hang out (talk pages and edit screens)
is > the way to go.
Editors "hang out" in the article name space more than on the talk pages. And we should not give the illusion that something is "nice and clean" when a warning that it isn't would be more honest and useful.
The only exception I can see to this would be for really sub-standard articles where the messages help to warn readers.
I'm glad we agree that such metadata belongs in the article space. Currently very many of our articles are below the standard which readers are likely to expect of a recently published encyclopedia. Thus I don't see anything wrong with using such tags a lot.
As for the WikiProject tags I don't actually feel that strongly about them. I wouldn't mind having them in the article space but I'm not upset that more people seem to lean the other way.
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson (haukurth@hi.is) [050715 09:32]:
As for the WikiProject tags I don't actually feel that strongly about them. I wouldn't mind having them in the article space but I'm not upset that more people seem to lean the other way.
I'm appalled by the idea. The articles are part of Wikipedia; a project's work should be *invisible* except the results themselves.
- d.
I'm appalled by the idea. The articles are part of Wikipedia; a project's work should be *invisible* except the results themselves.
As I said I don't care as strongly about placement of the WikiProject tags as the other metadata tags under consideration.
I'd like to note that one of the things that initially pulled me into Wikipedia was the humble {{stub}} template.
"... you can help Wikipedia by expanding it."
I can? Really? Where do I sign up?!
Regards, Haukur
Haukur Þorgeirsson (haukurth@hi.is) [050715 10:59]:
I'm appalled by the idea. The articles are part of Wikipedia; a project's work should be *invisible* except the results themselves.
As I said I don't care as strongly about placement of the WikiProject tags as the other metadata tags under consideration. I'd like to note that one of the things that initially pulled me into Wikipedia was the humble {{stub}} template. "... you can help Wikipedia by expanding it." I can? Really? Where do I sign up?!
:-)
The thing about templates like {{stub}}, {{NPOV}} and so on is that they are temporary by their nature - they indicate a problem that needs fixing. The problem is fixed and the tag goes away.
Project tags on an article would be permanent by nature. That's not so good IMO.
- d.
The thing about templates like {{stub}}, {{NPOV}} and so on is that they are temporary by their nature - they indicate a problem that needs fixing. The problem is fixed and the tag goes away.
Agreed.
Project tags on an article would be permanent by nature. That's not so good IMO.
Ah... I wouldn't be too happy with permanent project tags either. I was thinking of projects like "collaboration of the week" which is also quite temporary.
Most of the templates under vote are temporary. I agree that things like {{Template:Album}} and {{Template:DrugsNotice}} might be a bit too distracting to have in the article space. I'd probably support a small unobtrusive link.
I've always felt that the featured label belongs in the article namespace. A small star accompanied with the words "Featured article", linking to more information, would be enough.
Regards, Haukur
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I've always felt that the featured label belongs in the article namespace. A small star accompanied with the words "Featured article", linking to more information, would be enough.
Featured status can and should be part of any article validation feature.
Thus the article *itself* would be free from the tag but readers would nontheless see the star or whatnot.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/14/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
I'm appalled by the idea. The articles are part of Wikipedia; a project's work should be *invisible* except the results themselves.
As I said I don't care as strongly about placement of the WikiProject tags as the other metadata tags under consideration.
I'd like to note that one of the things that initially pulled me into Wikipedia was the humble {{stub}} template.
"... you can help Wikipedia by expanding it."
I can? Really? Where do I sign up?!
Regards, Haukur
Exactly my point. The stub tag is perhaps the best of the lot, as it is a very clear invitation to participate, and implies that the new editor's contributions would be appreciated by someone out there in Wikipedia-land. It's also what drew me into the project.
Full creation invisibility is, in my opinion, the very worst way we could possibly present data to our readers. Other encyclopedias already do that; they say "Here's the article, never you mind where it came from. We're the authorities, you just read. And don't come complaining if it doesn't cover all you think it should; we make the editorial decisions here, not you." If Wikipedia wasn't fundamentally different than that, I wouldn't bother to contribute.
You involve more users by having a few loose ends showing, and you're honest with the readers who won't get involved if you admit up front that yes, those are loose ends you see there.
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
As I see it the primary goal of the Wikipedia project is to *create* an encyclopedia - not to *be* an encyclopedia. Thus editors are more important than readers.
And yet throughout the creation process what we have already still needs to be maximally useful to readers and reusers. If we had a production schedule whereby articles are not published until ready, then what you say would have validity.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/15/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
As I see it the primary goal of the Wikipedia project is to *create* an encyclopedia - not to *be* an encyclopedia. Thus editors are more important than readers.
And yet throughout the creation process what we have already still needs to be maximally useful to readers and reusers. If we had a production schedule whereby articles are not published until ready, then what you say would have validity.
-- mav
Personally, I couldn't care any less about reusers. The existence of reusers is simply a byproduct of the license of the project. I don't think we should go out of our way to either accomodate or inconvenience them in any way. They get exactly zero weight my decisions.
I only care about the readers and editors. What is useful to the readers is the same thing that is useful to the editors. That is blunt and obvious honesty about the amorphous nature of any Wikipedia article. I've already seen reports that cite articles in Wikipedia as if they're complete and static. This is absolutely wrong, and occurs because we're not obvious enough about the nature of the Wiki.
Finally, templates and tags can easily be stripped from the articles for anyone who wants it that way, by reusers, or by the team that puts together a "static content" version of any form.
--- Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I couldn't care any less about reusers. The existence of reusers is simply a byproduct of the license of the project. I don't think we should go out of our way to either accomodate or inconvenience them in any way. They get exactly zero weight my decisions.
Reuse is at the heart of what free content is all about and having everything as free content is a very large part of our goal and mission. Having too many Wikipedia/editor-specific references makes reuse harder than it needs to be and thus goes against our goals.
I only care about the readers and editors. What is useful to the readers is the same thing that is useful to the editors.
Not so. A WikiProject tag has very little use to readers. The only exception would be in the references section where an external link styled link to a WikiProject page may be appropriate. I have done this for some WikiProject Elements articles where I state where the data came from for the tables. The WikiProject ref is for readers who may want to know what references where used for different parts of the table.
And, as I have already said, this does not apply to sub-standard articles. Those need extra help and asking readers for help is valid. Thus a WikiProject link as part of a subject area stub message is OK. In the future it would be nice to be able to add meta tags to all stub, clean-up and POV messages that could be used to exclude any article with those tags from being included in a special download dump for reusers and anybody interested in making a print version.
The point is to limit messages aimed at editors to talk pages except in cases of clearly sub-standard articles. When the tagged article gets fixed, then the message goes away.
That is blunt and obvious honesty about the amorphous nature of any Wikipedia article. I've already seen reports that cite articles in Wikipedia as if they're complete and static. This is absolutely wrong, and occurs because we're not obvious enough about the nature of the Wiki.
'Edit the page' is already at the top of every page and awareness of how we work is spreading very rapidly. The fact that many articles do stay so stable for so long is a testament to how fast vandalism and other rubbish is cleaned-up. This is a good thing.
Finally, templates and tags can easily be stripped from the articles for anyone who wants it that way, by reusers, or by the team that puts together a "static content" version of any form.
This would be true if such messages where few in number and every reuser used MediaWiki software.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 7/15/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I couldn't care any less about reusers. The existence of reusers is simply a byproduct of the license of the project. I don't think we should go out of our way to either accomodate or inconvenience them in any way. They get exactly zero weight my decisions.
Reuse is at the heart of what free content is all about and having everything as free content is a very large part of our goal and mission. Having too many Wikipedia/editor-specific references makes reuse harder than it needs to be and thus goes against our goals.
If something makes it easier to generate content, but happens to make it harder to reuse content off site, I'm still all for it. Free content does not mean we should reduce the value on the main site to satisfy third parties. Reuse rights are simply "take it or leave it as it is". However, if there's something that increases the value of reuse without having any impact on content generation, then I'm all for that as well.
I only care about the readers and editors. What is useful to the readers is the same thing that is useful to the editors.
Not so. A WikiProject tag has very little use to readers. The only exception would be in the references section where an external link styled link to a WikiProject page may be appropriate. I have done this for some WikiProject Elements articles where I state where the data came from for the tables. The WikiProject ref is for readers who may want to know what references where used for different parts of the table.
WikiProject tag locations should be decided primarily by the WikiProject members. If they think it is useful enough to the reading public to put on the article page, then it almost certainly is. Assume good faith among the WikiProject members. Join their discussions and perhaps you can convince them that your way is correct. Please don't campaign for policy votes to empower people to dictate personal preferences to others.
And, as I have already said, this does not apply to sub-standard articles. Those need extra help and asking readers for help is valid. Thus a WikiProject link as part of a subject area stub message is OK. In the future it would be nice to be able to add meta tags to all stub, clean-up and POV messages that could be used to exclude any article with those tags from being included in a special download dump for reusers and anybody interested in making a print version.
The point is to limit messages aimed at editors to talk pages except in cases of clearly sub-standard articles. When the tagged article gets fixed, then the message goes away.
All articles are sub-standard in one way or another. There is no state of perfection that articles can reach. Even if there were, our process doesn't allow locking an article if it ever did reach that fictional stage. We acknowledge this, sometimes very openly; while other encyclopedias often pretend to present absolute truth instead. Of course the tag messages are transient in nature; but they go away when consensus forms that they aren't required anymore, not when an article is fixed. They reappear again when someone sees something that could be improved. There is no "final version" of a Wikipedia article.
That is blunt and obvious honesty about the amorphous nature of any Wikipedia article. I've already seen reports that cite articles in Wikipedia as if they're complete and static. This is absolutely wrong, and occurs because we're not obvious enough about the nature of the Wiki.
'Edit the page' is already at the top of every page and awareness of how we work is spreading very rapidly. The fact that many articles do stay so stable for so long is a testament to how fast vandalism and other rubbish is cleaned-up. This is a good thing.
This might be a good point, except that the articles referenced were not stable, nor can we count on them ever being stable. Also, we cannot count on readers' prior knowledge of how we work. We should be clear and explicit at all times. I also won't assume our readers will learn how we work when they come here because if all they're coming for is the content, their purpose for visiting is not to explore how we create the content.
Finally, templates and tags can easily be stripped from the articles for anyone who wants it that way, by reusers, or by the team that puts together a "static content" version of any form.
This would be true if such messages where few in number and every reuser used MediaWiki software.
-- mav
Templates are easily removable with a simple script. Part of the value of using templates and tags across many articles is that their uniformity makes them easy to find (and remove, if desired). How many there are is irrelevant. What software a reuser chooses is unrelated trivia.
--- Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
If something makes it easier to generate content, but happens to make it harder to reuse content off site, I'm still all for it.
Then there is no point in furthering this conversation with you. You obviously value the process of content generation over the actual use of that content. This is directly counter to the goals of the project.
-- mav
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
On 7/15/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
If something makes it easier to generate content, but happens to make it harder to reuse content off site, I'm still all for it.
Then there is no point in furthering this conversation with you. You obviously value the process of content generation over the actual use of that content. This is directly counter to the goals of the project.
-- mav
That's a pretty nasty accusation you've thrown there, Daniel. (That my opinion is counter to the very goals of the project.)
I value the process of content generation over THIRD PARTY use of that content, not over first party use. As I already mentioned in the part you cut off, I also value third party use of the content, but NOT EVER AT THE EXPENSE OF first party generation and use of the content.
This is very different than the oversimplified (and wrong) way you've just portrayed me.
I don't know if you respect my priorities, but I think I understand and respect, but strongly disagree with yours.
Our primary mission is to create an encyclopedia, not to provide content for unrelated third parties. The main site and the projects of it are -always- the first priority. Note that I did NOT say -only- priority.
Angela mentioned CD and DVD distribution, and I agree completely with the overall goal of distributing knowledge in many forms. If we need to adjust our templates and tags to make them easier to strip out for those purposes, then let's go ahead and do that.* But ONLY if it doesn't devalue them in any way on the main Wikipedia project. And restricting them to talk pages only to make it so that the "hard copy" distributors don't have to take a very simple step to strip the templates and tags off seriously damages the main project, in my opinion, so should not be considered.
*Since the templates and tags are -already- relatively simple to strip off using a programmed script, I don't see the need to act on this, but I'm open to suggestions, too.
--- Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
That's a pretty nasty accusation you've thrown there, Daniel. (That my opinion is counter to the very goals of the project.)
My point still stands; that our purpose is to create something useful with an emphasis on the usefulness part. Having too much meta data in otherwise decent articles vs on talk pages goes against that because that just gets in the way of *reading* the article. Only if the particular article needs extra help should we emphasize the development aspect. Prominently-placed 'Edit this Page', 'Discussion', and 'History' links will still be there for those that are interested.
I value the process of content generation over THIRD PARTY use of that content, not over first party use. As I already mentioned in the part you cut off, I also value third party use of the content, but NOT EVER AT THE EXPENSE OF first party generation and use of the content.
Using talk pages for talk and info *about* articles that are not sub-standard (stub, badly organized, and/or POV) is the purpose of talk pages. That is why talk pages exist. Having those meta data in articles hurts the usefulness of the content *right here* on Wikipedia as well as making it unnecessarily hard for third party reuse or our own reuse for making a print and/or CD/DVD version (I have been told that getting rid of editor-related messages was a huge chore that needed to be done to get a German DVD ready).
This is the last email I'm sending to you on this.
-- mav
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 7/16/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
That's a pretty nasty accusation you've thrown there, Daniel. (That my opinion is counter to the very goals of the project.)
My point still stands; that our purpose is to create something useful with an emphasis on the usefulness part.
Again, I disagree, this time with your definition of useful: I think my version offers additional useful information for readers and editors alike. However, part of our difference is that I won't accuse you of having motivations contrary to the very mission of Wikipedia for disagreeing with me. I hope you will offer me the same courtesy some day.
This is the last email I'm sending to you on this.
-- mav
If you change your mind, you're always welcome to email me privately, if you feel our discussion is distracting to other list members.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:27:07AM -0400, Michael Turley wrote:
Personally, I couldn't care any less about reusers. The existence of reusers is simply a byproduct of the license of the project. I don't think we should go out of our way to either accomodate or inconvenience them in any way. They get exactly zero weight my decisions.
Thoroughly agreed.
Open-source / free-content projects seem to fall into two categories along these lines: those whose direct contributors and consumers are end-users, and those whose direct contributors and consumers are redistributors.
Take the Linux kernel for instance. Most people who use Linux do not get their kernel directly from the kernel developers. They get it from a redistributor -- Red Hat, SuSE, Debian, Ubuntu, or the like. At the same time, much of the kernel development is done by people working for redistributors or resellers -- not just companies like Red Hat, but companies like IBM.
Nor is this a coincidence: most end-users of Linux are not *able* to use the Linux kernel in the form produced by the developers. They lack the necessary technical skills and time, to say nothing of the desire, to deal with raw kernel source. Redistributors provide an essential service by taking the raw kernel source and packaging it (along with a great deal of other software) in such a way that end-users can make use of it.
Wikipedia, in contrast, does not enjoy this kind of relationship with redistributors.
First off, there are only a tiny number of *legitimate* redistributors, such as Wikinfo. The vast majority of redistribution of Wikipedia content is illegal and illegitimate -- Web sites which copy Wikipedia content without attribution, using our high-quality writing to place high on search engines, score advertisement revenue, and push spyware. We have no interest whatsoever in helping people violate our rights.
Second, redistributors' contribution to the project is quite small by comparison with the contribution of end-users. (Sorry, Fred.) Thus, in any (rare!) case where the interests of end-users vie against the interests of redistributors, we need to consider that Wikipedia gets vastly more benefit from end-users than from redistributors.
Third, redistributors are not essential to the project, in the manner that Linux redistributors are. End-users can (and do!) use Wikipedia just as easily as they can use a redistributor. Indeed, Wikipedia has substantial benefits over most (illegal) redistributors: it's legal; it's more up-to-date; it doesn't run ads; it doesn't reformat the articles in brain-dead ways.
I only care about the readers and editors. What is useful to the readers is the same thing that is useful to the editors.
There's a corollary here: anyone who claims to be speaking "for the readers" (as _opposed_ to editors) is likely talking out his hat. We've seen this a number of times -- folks who purport that the interests of readers and those of editors are somehow at odds with one another, and that editors should change their ways in order to benefit the "silent majority" of readers.
But that's just "the lurkers support me in email" all over again. :)
End-users can (and do!) use Wikipedia just as easily as they can use a redistributor.
No, they can't.
I doubt very much Andy Rabagliati, to take just one example, would be spending so much time and effort to install Wikipedia CDs in schools in South Africa if those users could just as easily open up the Wikipedia website. Not every user of Wikipedia has fast (or any) access to the Internet.
Another example is that if users could just a easily use Wikipedia as content from a redistributor, I expect no one would be paying ten euro to buy the German Wikipedia DVD, and yet 10,000 copies sold within days (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/German_Wikipedia_DVD_sells_out_first_10,000-copy_run).
Having content at Wikipedia.org is great, but it's only the beginning of the efforts to place free educational content in the hands of every person on the planet. We do need to consider redistributors since we're certainly not going to meet that goal without them.
When thinking of the reusers of our content, please consider those who have the same goals as Wikimedia, not the Google adsense spammers.
Angela.
On 7/14/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Admittedly the WikiProject templates are a bit too big and unattractive but I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly prettified version of them in the article namespace where they are much more likely to be seen and do some good - perhaps attracting new editors.
Those messages are ugly and have no relevance to third party users of Wikipedia content. We also do not have a problem with attracting new editors as is so this is a solution in search of a problem. Best to keep things as clean as possible for the vast majority of our users - readers.
-- mav
"Ugly" has nothing to do with it. Readers deserve to know our the weaknesses present in our articles in the most open and direct way possible; at the top of the articles in question. These templates are every bit as relevant to readers as they are to editors.
This is one way that I can see Wikipedia being '''far superior''' than any other encyclopedia ever written.
Does Encarta tell you that their [[Jerusalem]] article was revised and reverted and distilled among many points of view, or do they present just one, and assume you'll trust them because they're the authority figure?
Does Encarta allow you to go through the revision history of articles such as [[Ronald Reagan]] to look for subtle biases and outright point-of-view imbalances?
Does Encarta tell you that they might not have enough references to be giving a truly "authoritative" presentation on [[Antiretroviral drugs]]? (Picked at random from my watchlist... we actually could use a few more cited references ourselves.)
Would Encarta acknowledge if they don't have a good photograph of [[Basil Rathbone]]?
Wikipedia will always be far superior if we always acknowledge our weaknesses in the most open way possible, not just because it inspires more contributions, but because it is a more intellectually honest way of presenting information. While others hide behind the voice of authority, we openly ask for help where we need it.
--- Michael Turley michael.turley@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia will always be far superior if we always acknowledge our weaknesses in the most open way possible, not just because it inspires more contributions, but because it is a more intellectually honest way of presenting information. While others hide behind the voice of authority, we openly ask for help where we need it.
Avoiding self references except where needed is a valid goal becasue it makes our content easier to use for third parties. We must balance the needs of readers with recruitment and the needs of third party users. Using talk pages for all but the most important meta data is the way to go.
Posting things like ToDo lists in the article itself or adding instruction creep such as WikiProject tags hurts more than helps and makes our content less usable to third parties.
We have talk pages, let's use them.
-- mav
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Posting things like ToDo lists in the article itself or adding instruction creep such as WikiProject tags hurts more than helps and makes our content less usable to third parties.
The effort needed by a content reuser to remove a WikiProject tag is negligible.
We have talk pages, let's use them.
We do. But I read a lot more main pages than talk pages so I'm much more likely to pay attention to a tag on an article than on its talk page.
Regards, Haukur
On Jul 14, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Haukur Þorgeirsson wrote:
Posting things like ToDo lists in the article itself or adding instruction creep such as WikiProject tags hurts more than helps and makes our content less usable to third parties.
The effort needed by a content reuser to remove a WikiProject tag is negligible.
For one page. What do you propose to do for mirrors? 1.0? The eventual dreamed-of DVD disributions?
-Snowspinner
The effort needed by a content reuser to remove a WikiProject tag is negligible.
For one page. What do you propose to do for mirrors? 1.0? The eventual dreamed-of DVD disributions?
The effort is still negligible, can be easily automated and pales in comparison with other aspects of those tasks.
Regards, Haukur
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Those messages are ugly and have no relevance to third party users of Wikipedia content. We also do not have a problem with attracting new editors as is so this is a solution in search of a problem. Best to keep things as clean as possible for the vast majority of our users - readers.
I agree with this---the less meta-pollution of the article space, the better. When I'm editing Wikipedia articles, I generally think "how would this seem if it appeared in a printed version of Wikipedia?" If the answer is "really out of place", then it shouldn't be there, IMO.
-Mark
Wikipedia:Template madness equates to overall Wikipedia:Article blight , and general wikimalaise.
With few exceptions, small templates should fit in the sidebar like interwiki links, and likewise with those annoying "redirected from" links.
Those technical limitations stickers are pretty senseless and overused too: why advertise technical limitations which arent really "limitations" anyway? (FTTB, These can be split up by specific type of use, and evaluated independently, but that will take some work... )
S
--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Admittedly the WikiProject templates are a bit too big and unattractive but I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly prettified version of them in the article namespace where they are much more likely to be
seen
and do some good - perhaps attracting new editors.
Those messages are ugly and have no relevance to third party users of Wikipedia content. We also do not have a problem with attracting new editors as is so this is a solution in search of a problem. Best to keep things as clean as possible for the vast majority of our users - readers.
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
On 14/07/05, Haukur Þorgeirsson haukurth@hi.is wrote:
Admittedly the WikiProject templates are a bit too big and unattractive but I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly prettified version of them in the article namespace where they are much more likely to be seen and do some good - perhaps attracting new editors.
Smaller and prettier versions could probably help *anyway* - there's a few articles where the first screen (or more) of the talkpage is entirely taken up by big boxes saying "This was a featured article" "This was peer-reviewed" "We're making a spoken version of this" &c &c.